IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Disaggregated Data and Trade Policy Analysis: The Value of Linking Partial and General Equilibrium Models

  • Narayanan, Badri
  • Hertel, Thomas
  • Horridge, Mark

Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) models are now routinely utilized for the evaluation of trade policy reforms, yet they are typically quite highly aggregated, which limits their usefulness to trade negotiators who are often interested in impacts at the tariff line. On the other hand, Partial Equilibrium (PE) models, which are typically used for analysis at disaggregate levels, deprive the researcher of the benefits of an economy-wide analysis, which is required to examine the overall impact of broad-based trade policy reforms. Therefore, a PE-GE, nested modeling framework has the prospect of offering an ideal tool for trade policy analysis. In this paper, we develop a PE model that captures international trade, domestic consumption and output, using Constant Elasticity of Transformation (CET) and Constant Elasticity of Substitution (CES) structures, market clearing conditions and price linkages, nested within the standard GTAP Model. In particular, we extend the welfare decomposition of Huff and Hertel (2001) to this PE-GE model in order to contrast the sources of welfare gain in PE and GE analyses. To illustrate the usefulness of this model, we examine the contentious issue of tariff liberalization in the Indian auto sector, using PE, GE and PE-GE models. Both the PE and PE-GE models show that the imports of Motorcycles and Automobiles change drastically with both unilateral and bilateral tariff liberalization by India, but the PE model does a poor job predicting the overall size and price level in the industry, post-liberalization. On the other hand, the GE model overestimates substitution between regional suppliers due to false competition and underestimates the welfare gain, due to the problem of tariff averaging in the aggregated model. These findings are shown to be robust to wide variation in model parameters. We conclude that the linked model is superior to both the GE and PE counterparts.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University in its series GTAP Working Papers with number 3162.

in new window

Date of creation: 2009
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:gta:workpp:3162
Note: GTAP Working Paper No. 56
Contact details of provider: Postal: 1145 Krannert Building, West Lafayette, IN 47907-1145
Phone: (765) 494-4267
Fax: 765 494-9176
Web page:

More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as in new window
  1. James E. Anderson, 2008. "Consistent Trade Policy Aggregation," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 702, Boston College Department of Economics.
  2. Anderson, James E & Neary, J Peter, 1998. "The Mercantilist Index of Trade Policy," CEPR Discussion Papers 2044, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  3. Ray, Edward John, 1987. "The Impact of Special Interests on Preferential Tariff Concessions by the United States," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 69(2), pages 187-93, May.
  4. Nicolas Herault, 2007. "Trade Liberalisation, Poverty and Inequality in South Africa: A Computable General Equilibrium-Microsimulation Analysis," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 83(262), pages 317-328, 09.
  5. Anderson, James E. & Neary, J. Peter, 1992. "A new approach to evaluating trade policy," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1022, The World Bank.
  6. Gohin, Alexandre, 2005. "The specification of price and income elasticities in computable general equilibrium models: An application of latent separability," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 22(5), pages 905-925, September.
  7. Anderson, James E, 1998. "Trade Restrictiveness Benchmarks," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 108(449), pages 1111-25, July.
  8. Arndt, Channing & Robinson, Sherman & Tarp, Finn, 2002. "Parameter estimation for a computable general equilibrium model: a maximum entropy approach," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 375-398, May.
  9. Malakellis, Michael, 1998. "Should Tariff Reductions Be Announced? An Intertemporal Computable General Equilibrium Analysis," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 74(225), pages 121-38, June.
  10. Hertel, Thomas & Keeney, Roman & Ivanic, Maros & Winters, Alan, 2007. "Why Isn’t the Doha Development Agenda More Poverty Friendly?," GTAP Working Papers 2292, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University.
  11. Pomfret, Richard, 1985. "Categorical Aggregation and International Trade: A Comment," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 95(378), pages 483-85, June.
  12. Badri Narayanan G. & Pankaj Vashisht, 2008. "Determinants of Competitiveness of the Indian Auto Industry," Microeconomics Working Papers 22234, East Asian Bureau of Economic Research.
  13. Willenbockel, Dirk, 2004. "Specification choice and robustness in CGE trade policy analysis with imperfect competition," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 21(6), pages 1065-1099, December.
  14. repec:bla:restud:v:53:y:1986:i:3:p:407-19 is not listed on IDEAS
  15. Russell H. Hillberry, 2002. "Aggregation bias, compositional change, and the border effect," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 35(3), pages 517-530, August.
  16. Boussard, Jean-Marc & Gerard, Francoise & Piketty, Marie Gabrielle & Ayouz, Mourad & Voituriez, Tancrede, 2006. "Endogenous risk and long run effects of liberalization in a global analysis framework," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 457-475, May.
  17. Olarreaga, Marcelo & Soloaga, Isidro, 1998. "Endogenous Tariff Formation: The Case of Mercosur," CEPR Discussion Papers 1848, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  18. Bouet, Antoine & Decreux, Yvan & Fontagne, Lionel & Jean, Sebastien & Laborde, David, 2005. "A Consistent Picture of Applied Protection Across the World," Working Papers 18859, TRADEAG - Agricultural Trade Agreements.
  19. Huiwen Lai & Susan Chun Zhu, 2004. "The determinants of bilateral trade," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 37(2), pages 459-483, May.
  20. McDougall, Robert, 2002. "A New Regional Household Demand System for GTAP," GTAP Technical Papers 942, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University.
  21. Rod Tyers & Yongzheng Yang, 2004. "The Asian Recession and Northern Labour Markets," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 80(248), pages 58-75, 03.
  22. Beghin, John C & Kherallah, Mylene, 1994. "Political Institutions and International Patterns of Agricultural Protection," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 76(3), pages 482-89, August.
  23. Trefler, Daniel, 1993. "Trade Liberalization and the Theory of Endogenous Protection: An Econometric Study of U.S. Import Policy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 101(1), pages 138-60, February.
  24. Thomas Hertel & David Hummels & Maros Ivanic & Roman Keeney, 2004. "How Confident Can We Be in CGE-Based Assessments of Free Trade Agreements?," NBER Working Papers 10477, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  25. A. Ganesh Kumar & Gordhan Kumar Saini, 2007. "Economic co-operation in South Asia: The Dilemma of SAFTA and beyond," Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai Working Papers 2007-017, Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai, India.
  26. Peter J. Lloyd & Donald Maclaren, 2004. "Gains and Losses from Regional Trading Agreements: A Survey," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 80(251), pages 445-467, December.
  27. James E. Anderson & Eric van Wincoop, 2004. "Trade Costs," NBER Working Papers 10480, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  28. Noel Gaston & Daniel Trefler, 1994. "Protection, Trade, and Wages: Evidence from U.S. Manufacturing," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 47(4), pages 574-593, July.
  29. Malcolm, Gerard, 1998. "Adjusting Tax Rates in the GTAP Data Base," GTAP Technical Papers 315, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University.
  30. Peter B. Dixon & Maureen T. Rimmer, 2004. "The US economy from 1992 to 1998: results from a detailed CGE model," Centre of Policy Studies/IMPACT Centre Working Papers g-144, Victoria University, Centre of Policy Studies/IMPACT Centre.
  31. Amita Batra, 2006. "Asian Economic Integration ASEAN+3+1 or ASEAN+1s?," Trade Working Papers 22143, East Asian Bureau of Economic Research.
  32. Ramos, Maria Priscila & Bureau, Jean-Christophe & Salvatici, Luca, 2007. "Shipping the good beef out: EU trade liberalization to Mercosur exports," Working Papers 7215, TRADEAG - Agricultural Trade Agreements.
  33. Joseph Francois & Hans Van Meijl & Frank Van Tongeren, 2005. "Trade liberalization in the Doha Development Round," Economic Policy, CEPR;CES;MSH, vol. 20(42), pages 349-391, 04.
  34. Bach, Christian F. & Martin, Will, 2001. "Would the right tariff aggregator for policy analysis please stand up?," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 23(6), pages 621-635, August.
  35. Goldberg, Pinelopi Koujianou, 1995. "Product Differentiation and Oligopoly in International Markets: The Case of the U.S. Automobile Industry," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 63(4), pages 891-951, July.
  36. John Beghin & Cheng Fang, 2002. "Protection and Trade Liberalization under Incomplete Market Integration," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 84(3), pages 768-773.
  37. Madsen, Bjarne & Jensen-Butler, Chris, 2004. "Theoretical and operational issues in sub-regional economic modelling, illustrated through the development and application of the LINE model," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 471-508, May.
  38. Huff, Karen & Thomas W. Hertel, 2001. "Decomposing Welfare Changes in GTAP," GTAP Technical Papers 308, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University.
  39. Sang-Hee Han & Alan D. Woodland, 2003. "An Inter-temporal General Equilibrium Econometric Model for a Small Open Economy with Application to Australia," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 79(244), pages 1-19, 03.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gta:workpp:3162. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Jeremy Douglas)

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.